Progress in climate science

It's amazing what a few months can do. I've been watching the activity on the net since Climategate quite closely. Before that, I held the view that the earth was warming and that CO2 was probably a major contributor, but I was already sceptical that CO2 was the whole story because there were other plausible theories based on solar activity that affects cloud formation and they seemed to have a good foundation in historical evidence going back millennia. But like everyone else, I had no real idea how the climate worked. So, Climategate came for me in the middle of a learning period, where I decided that climate would figure much more in futures work, so needed to get a handle on it. I've now been studying climate science for about 9 months, so I still only qualify as a novice, and won't be giving up my day job any time soon.

But Climategate was an eye-opener. I hadn't realised just how flimsy the evidence for AGW (human-induced global warming) was until then, or how biased some of the climate scientists were, how they had done some bad science themselves, and then managed to block alternative theories, by withholding data, bullying journals into blocking publication, effectively seizing control of the IPCC and so on. I had assumed that the temperature data was sound, but it isn't. I had assumed that the climate models took full account of solar activity, but they don't. I assumed they looked at cloud formation mechanism in great detail, but they don't. I assumed they looked at the data impartially instead of having a predetermined outcome and steering the models in that direction, but it turns out the models were designed to show warming and the inputs and equations selected and distorted to achieve that goal. Since many other researchers based their theories on that same data, their outputs were similarly corrupted. So it turns out that much of climate science has been corrupted and is badly in need of repair. Given that some of the data has been destroyed or altered, there is a lot of mess and damage to be cleared up.

But all is not lost. There is a lot of good science out there, and before climate science was politicised in the early 90s, some of the thinking and analysis was quite good quality. There have been several key studies recently that provide valuable insights, and several more well on the way. I have no doubt that science will recover slowly and we will end up with a good understanding how the Earth's climate actually works, and will be able to figure out where it is going, and even some ideas how we might control it in some degree.

To give some idea how complex the field is, here are some of the things we know about the climate, and some that we know we don't know.

There is historically a very strong correlation between cosmic radiation levels and climate. The galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) entering the solar system varies significantly, and the variations correlate well with temperature. The total amount of radiation we get from the sun varies only a small amount, and even the spectrum only varies by a little, but sunspot activity has a big effect on climate. It appears to do so via the enormous magnetic storms associated with sunspots, and the result is that cosmic rays are deflected and fewer enter the earth's atmosphere. Thanks to some excellent work by Jasper Kirby and his colleagues at CERN, we know that cosmic rays entering the atmosphere produce a shower of other particles, and these can act as nucleation centres for water droplets to form from water vapour present in the atmosphere. These droplets can form clouds, and clouds can change reflect radiation back into space, and can also act as insulation. The exact mechanisms are not yet understood, but CERN is studying them now and expect to report in the next couple of years. As they do, we can start to include cloud formation related to sunspot activity and GCR variation into climate models.

Other studies by NASA on cloud formation will also help. Atmospheric behaviour is very complex, but the more we understand it, the better we can model it. In particular, NASA Goddard Space Research Centre has recently shown that aerosols in the atmosphere have a big effect on temperature. In particular, they discovered that black carbon from diesel exhausts has a huge effect on radiation absorption, and could account for much (50% or more) of the glacier melting that has been observed. Of course, it would be much easier to reduce black carbon than CO2. Other studies at the University of Waterloo suggest mechanism by which CFCs, released in the past by aerosol sprays and refrigerants, but now banned in many countries and phasing out in others, can interact with cosmic rays to break down ozone. Ozone absorbs solar radiation in the higher atmosphere, so reducing ozone results in more radiation being absorbed in the lower atmosphere, so increases warming. CFCs are a powerful greenhouse gas in their own right too. The reduction of CFCs in the atmosphere since 2000 correlates well with the levelling off of temperature, just as the rise over the previous decades correlates with the rise in temperature. As the ozone hole closes, temperature would tend to cool. Deforestation and change of land use is also very important. As trees are burnt, and as land turns to desert, or as fields are ploughed, dust enters the atmosphere. Small particles can stay there for days and affect cloud formation. And we may find that air travel contributes more to warming via contrails than by the CO2 emitted by the engines. Air traffic in most of the world flies too low to be so significant, but across the poles, the same altitude reaches a different region of the atmosphere where different reactions apply. The lower temperature at the poles results in a lower stratosphere, and some flights emit water vapour there. In a nutshell, it hangs around longer and causes more warming via cloud formation interactions with the lower atmosphere. This may be one of the major factors why the north pole is melting far faster than expected, while the south isn't, having much less air traffic of course. But we need the science to be done, then we can model it properly.

So, with black carbon, dust, CFCs, ozone depletion, galactic cosmic ray flux variation, and a variable shield from solar magnetic activity, it already looks like CO2 is just one of a series of contributors to global warming. The CFCs may well turn out to be the bigger human influence. But as yet, these factors cannot all be properly compared, because we don't understand the science behind the various interactions well enough. But we will be much better placed to do so in the next couple of years.

Scientists also know that oceans are responsible for much of the climatic variation. Oceans act as a huge thermal store as well as acting as a store of various gases. Movement of water between the depths and surface layers is a very slow process, so acts as both a long term damper and delay. Surface currents that transport heat around the world are also highly significant. And yet our understanding of the many factors is still in its infancy. El nino and la nina are still fairly new terms to most of us, and they still cannot be predicted well. Huge server farms are required just to model behaviour of small areas of ocean, so computer power is still one of the major bottlenecks. Getting good input data is another. It will be several years at least before we can accurately model ocean currents and properly predict their contributions to climate.

One of the most worrying factors is that the historical record indicated that we are in a period similar to the midieval warm period as far as solar activity and galactic radiation are concerned. The MWP was followed by a mini ice age, and there is informed speculation that we may well now be heading into another. It is overdue, and the patterns of warming and levelling off are just right. But the other factors of CFCs, CO2, desert dust, air travel and so on make it a very complex situation indeed.

The danger we are in as a result is that the climate could arguable go either way now. If it turns out that CO2 really is as bad as is made out, then temperature will increase and we are in danger of crossing some critical points where methane clathrates start to vapourise, giving runaway greenhouse warming. If on the other hand, and which is looking more likely by the day, CO2 is only a small player and the bigger effects are either natural or related to CFCs and black carbon, then we will see a few more years of turbulent weather followed by decades of cooling. Technology progress will reduce fossil fuel use anyway, so there will be less CO2 in the atmosphere to offset cooling. If we try to reduce CO2 in such a case, and also clear up other pollutants such as CFCs and black carbon, then we will suffer even more.

So we are like a guy standing on the edge of a cliff, wearing a blindfold. Lots of people are screaming at us, telling us to do something because we are in grave danger. But if we move before we can see the direction of the drop, we are as likely to die as to survive. By far the best course of action is to remove the blindfold before we do anything else.

So, we should spend much less money on wind farms, and put a lot more into research, making sure it goes to people who are more interested in doing good science than in proselytising a particular viewpoint.

If climate scientists are lying, how can the rest of us know the truth?

Science is a proven mechanism for gathering and accumulating knowledge about how the universe works. Some clever bunny comes up with a theory and someone carefully tests it, doing real life experiments to get some real data that is evidence for or against it. They publish that data, along with details of the experiment (or their computer models), so that other scientists can check it and try to replicate the experimental data, to make sure there isn't just some error in the experimental process or the analysis. If verified data doesn't fully fit the initial theory, the theory is modified, and the process starts over. Over time, theories are well tested and either verified or disproved, and the whole field of scientific knowledge progresses, with new knowledge gradually added to what we already knew. This process has worked well for hundreds of years, and is the basis for almost all of our technological progress. Science is just verified knowledge.

Sadly, climate science has been perverted by politics and emotion as well as grant competition and some appears to have scant regard for the scientific process. There is fierce argument between those who say our climate will change dramatically because of human activity and those who say it won't, and further argument about the potential mechanisms for dealing with any change. People on both sides seem fond of cherry picking or distorting data to support their theory and discarding, ignoring or disguising data that doesn't. There is also evidence that some scientists are not sharing their data or methods as they should, or publishing their computer models.

There must be a great deal of excellent science out there, but if it is mixed up with bad science, how are those of us outside to know the difference? People need to be able to trust that the basic science is correct, and the consequent policies justified. If they can't, if some scientists have been caught distorting or hiding the truth for their own ends, then getting public support for actions will be much more difficult. If we are indeed facing the enormous consequences suggested by some in the field, then we need to act accordingly. If we're not, then we need to know that too before we waste many billions that could have been spent better elsewhere.For the benefit of the environment, bad  or corrupt scientists need to be exposed and ejected from the climate science field before they can do any more harm. Any data that they had should be inspected very carefully by other more reputable scientists and any analysis that has used any falsified data or conclusions needs to be redone.

People who deliberately distort data to make climate change look worse than the data really suggests may think they are helping to protect the environment, but are actually among the biggest dangers the environment faces. They are getting in the way of the proper science that we need to understand what is really happening and how to deal with it, and undermining support for any actions that are needed.

The need for scientific integrity obviously applies to both sides of the argument. We need to know the truth so that we can take the right actions. That means openly sharing details of models and experiments and all of the gathered data, whether it supports a particular theory or not, so that other scientists can check it all and build on it. Never before has it been so important that the scientific process is upheld. Our lives depend on it, and our environment is too important to be sacrificed to further the ego or ideology of any group.

climate change panic

http://www.speakerscorner.co.uk/file/b087b84d6935209f2b718cb5d441b07f/bjorn-lomborg-believes-we-are-sending-wrong-messages-about-climate-change-to-our-children.html

Worth a thought! I've heard Lomborg lecture, and I couldn't understand why some people were so critical of him, since almost everything he said seemed to make good sense to me. I still think so. He isn't a 'climate change denier', a term that seemes to have been created by the sort of lunatic fringe environmentalists who won't be happy until we've wiped mankind off the planet or wiped out all traces of modern life and gone back to hunting and gathering. He accepts the good science that has been done in the field, but like me, thinks we ought to concentrate on good science and come up with sensible solutions based on good science, instead of the knee-jerk reactions resulting from the sheer panic we so often seem to be immersed in today.

In the post, he warns that creating panic, under the excuse that we need to create awareness, is causing big problems. In that he is certainly correct. The New Scientist today (27 june issue) gives a quote that 1 in 3 american kids aged 6 to 11 are afraid the earth will cease to exist before they grow up because of global warming and other problems. We should certainly want everyone to be aware of the potential dangers if we do nothing about global warming, but creating this kind of fear in our kids is totally counter-productive. It surely must affect their health, and for teens facing a multitude of other emotional difficulties, it must also have a direct impact on suicide rates or other stress-related ilnesses such as eating disorders. we should be more responsible and more balanced, if only for our kids' sakes.

In adults, panic is dangerous too. As Lomborg has often pointed out, we are now spending huge amounts of money to avert relatively minor potential problems at the expense of solving actual current problems. It is far more important to address short term climate change than long term, because long term changes are more open to solution by future technologies at much lower cost than today. Lomborg has previously pointed out that protecting polar bears by reducing future climate change is rather more expensive and ineffective than protecting them by simply stopping shooting them, and in any case, they are multiplying, not becoming rarer.

We can reduce CO2 emissions in the long term by developing desert-based solar farms in the next few decades, and if we delay the investment in these until the technology is mature and low-price, the overall long term climate impacts per dollar will be far greater than if we invest in immature, expensive technologies today. However, this is not how policy makers are behaving. They are wasting huge amounts of money today to achieve much smaller long term results, leaving no money left to address shorter term issues of equal or greater importance. In the far future, we will also have a wide range of technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, so even the existing build-up will probably one day be economically reversible. So we should worry far less about CO2's impacts in the far future, because it will simply be much less of a problem thanks to future technology.

The targets are sometimes wrong too. As Kirk Smith points out in the New Scientist, it would be much more sensible today to tackle methane than CO2, and the reasons CO2 is being tackled instead are based on old and innacurate assumptions about the relative effects on warming of methane and CO2. It is also easier to deal with methane. Another important gas is water vapour, especially in the higher atmosphere, but it too is largely ignored in favour of CO2.

Problems that are further away are of lesser importance today. That is often ignored, and people often become sanctimonious about the impacts our lives today might have on future generations. However, technology has not stopped developing - indeed we have a very long way to go before technology change even stops accelerating. Problems far away might look big, but to the vastly superior technologuies that will also be around when they arrive, they might actually be fairly trivial. So we should discount the magnitude of far away problems according to the expected development in technology in the same timeframe. That is never done, and indeed many climate change pronouncements seem to ignore future technology progress completely. But it makes absolute nonsense to predict a world where our behaviours continue as today, where consumption accelerates, where we carry on using resources the same way as we have in the past, or where we use the same technology to provide for the many needs in our everyday lives. There will even be far more wealth to deal with the problems in the future, thanks to worldwide economic growth. Our kids won't have to spend as much to fix it, and they will have far more money anyway. Unless, that is, we waste it all by building up vast debts today to avert the problems by overspending on premature and ineffective solutions.

We need good science if we are to understand and fix the problems ahead. We also need policies that are sensible, and based on good science, good economics, up to date, and focused on the biggest bang per buck, with appropriate discounting for problems further in the future. Then perhaps we can begin a sensible dialogue based on facts instead of doom-mongering.